Tuesday, April 1, 2008

Jason Scott vs. Rick Ross

Jason Scott vs. Rick Ross - Court Transcript

Prior to trial, the Court _arrowed the
3 claims to conspiracy to violate _. Scott's civil'rlghts under 42
4 U.S.C. § 1985(3) (hereinafter "_ 1985(3)"), the tort of outrage,
5 and negligenc e.
'u 6 At the close of trial, the D ry returned a verdict against each
7 of the defendants on virtually all the remaining claims. = The
8 jury awarded compensatory damages in the amount of $875,000.00.
9 Pursuant to the civil rights claim, the jury awarded punitive
10 damages in the amount of $1,000,000.00 against CAN, $2,500,000.00
11 against Mr. Ross, and $250,000.00 each against Mr. Simpson and Mr.
12 Work-man.

7 The Court concludes not only that there is a sufficient
8 relationship between the harm and Mr. Ross' conduct, but than the
% remaining reasonableness factors also weigh heavily towards
10 upholding the jury's punitive damages award. As noted above, the
11 evidence supported the large award of compensatory damages.
12 Moreover, Mr. Ross' use of terminology cannon avoid the
13 uncontradicted evidence that he actively participated in the plan
14 to abduct Mr. Scott, restrain him with handcuffs and duct nape, and
_5 hold him involuntarily while demeaning his religious beliefs. _
18 A large award of punitive damages is also necessary under the
I? recidiv/sm and mitigation aspects of the factors cited in _.
IB Specifically, the Court notes nhat Mr. Ross himself testified that
19 he had acted similarly An the past and would continue to conduct
20 "deprogrammings" in the future.. Further, Mr. Ross faces no future
21 criminal or civil liabillty for his conduct.
22 " "
_With regard to Mr. Ross' role in this affair, the Court notes
24 that there isno credible support for the contention that he was
merely another participant in a plan wholly developed and
25 controlled by Ms. Tonkin.
26 ORDER -- 13
I Finally, the Court notes each of the defendants' seeming
2 incapability of appreciating the maliciousness of their conduct
3 towards Mr. Scott. Rather, throughout the entire course of this
4 litigation they have attempted to portray themselves as victims of
5 Mr. Scott's counsel's alleged agenda. Thus, the large award give n
6 by the jury against both CAN and Mr. Ross seems reasonably
? necessary to enforce the jury's determination on the oppressiveness
8 of the defendants' actions and deter similar conduct An the future.
9 Accordingly, the Court finds that both the compensatory and
10 punitive damages awards were reasonable and well founded An the
11 evidence.

No comments: